Pollution and Cancer in Alaska - Alaskans for Responsible Mining

advertisement
Pollution and Cancer in Alaska
Atomic Energy Commission lowering 5-megaton Spartan Missile
nuclear warhead into Cannikin mile-deep hole on Amchitka Island,
Alaska, November 6, 1971 (LLNL, 1971).
Table of Contents
1.0
Pollution in Alaska.............................................................................................................. 1
2.0
Persistent Organic Pollutants in Alaska.............................................................................. 3
2.1
Health Effects of Persistent Organic Pollutants.............................................................. 3
2.2
Contaminated Sites in Alaska ......................................................................................... 4
2.2.1
Cleanup Levels........................................................................................................ 6
2.2.2
Institutional Controls .............................................................................................. 6
2.2.3
Water Quality Standards at Contaminated Sites..................................................... 7
2.2.4
Future Contaminated Site Studies........................................................................... 8
2.3
Formerly Used Defense Sites........................................................................................ 10
2.4
Solid Waste in Alaska................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills .......................................................................... 11
2.4.2
Industrial Waste Monofills ................................................................................... 12
2.5
Drinking Water in Alaska ............................................................................................. 13
2.5.1
Drinking Water Monitoring Requirements........................................................... 14
2.5.2
Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels .................................................. 15
2.5.3
Future Drinking Water Studies ............................................................................. 16
3.0
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons in Alaska ............................................................................. 17
3.1
Oil Exploration & Extraction........................................................................................ 17
4.0
Heavy Metals in Alaska .................................................................................................... 19
4.1
Hardrock Mining in Alaska .......................................................................................... 19
4.2
Placer Mining................................................................................................................ 20
4.3
Abandoned Mines ......................................................................................................... 21
5.0
Radiation in Alaska........................................................................................................... 22
5.1
Amchitka Island Nuclear Tests..................................................................................... 22
5.2
Nuclear Reactor at Fort Greely ..................................................................................... 23
5.3
Future Radiation Studies............................................................................................... 23
6.0
Cancer in Alaska ............................................................................................................... 24
6.1
Cancer Statistics for Alaska .......................................................................................... 24
6.2
Quotes from Native Alaskan Regional Meetings ......................................................... 26
6.3
Future Epidemiological Studies.................................................................................... 26
7.0
Public Health & Wildlife Concerns .................................................................................. 27
7.1
Public Health Concerns................................................................................................. 27
7.2
Fish & Wildlife Concerns ............................................................................................. 28
8.0
Future Studies Summary................................................................................................... 30
8.1
Epidemiological Studies ............................................................................................... 30
8.2
Identification, Monitoring & Assessment Summary .................................................... 30
8.2.1
Contaminated Sites in Alaska ............................................................................... 30
8.2.2
Formerly Used Defense Sites................................................................................ 31
8.2.3
Solid & Industrial Waste Landfills ....................................................................... 31
8.2.4
Drinking Water ..................................................................................................... 31
8.2.5
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons.................................................................................. 32
8.2.6
Heavy Metals ........................................................................................................ 32
8.2.7
Radiation ............................................................................................................... 32
8.3
Human Health and Ecological Restitution.................................................................... 33
9.0
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 34
ii
Appendix A- Contaminated Sites in Alaska by City ................................................................... 37
Appendix B- Figures.................................................................................................................... 44
List of Tables
Table 1. Contaminated Sites and LUST Summary for Alaska…………………………..………..5
Table 2. Examples of Contaminated Sites Impacting Surface Waters in Alaska.….……………..9
Table 3. Permit Status of MSWLF in Alaska ………………………………….……..................12
Table 4. Minimum Raw Water Testing Requirements……………………….………………….15
iii
1.0 Pollution in Alaska
What are Alaska’s environmental and health concerns? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published what they consider the most pressing environmental issues in the Pacific
Northwest, including Alaska (EPA, 2004):
1) Tribal Environmental Health- “alarmingly high rates of cancer and influenza in Native
communities” possibly related to poor drinking water quality, contamination of food
sources and poor indoor air quality.
2) Clean-up of Contaminated Sites- human health and wildlife health impacts due to
contaminated sites.
3) Oil & Gas Exploration- the expansion of the oil and gas industry into new areas of
Alaska brings with it potential impacts due to large oil spills and low level hydrocarbons
on tribal subsistence concerns and wildlife health.
EPA’s concerns have been reverberated in several recent, comprehensive, environmental surveys
conducted in Alaska and throughout the Artic environment. In 1991, ministers of several Artic
countries adopted the Artic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) and established the Artic
Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP). Participating countries include Iceland, Russia,
Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United States, among others.
AMAP was requested to “examine levels of anthropogenic pollutants… from any sources… and to
assess their affects in all relevant compartments of the Artic environment” (AMAP, 1997). The
study area for AMAP is the land mass above the artic circle, including all of Alaska (see figure
below).
AMAP has identified and focused on several environmental issues and contaminants affecting the
health of the Arctic’s indigenous peoples and its wildlife, including those found in Alaska. The
primary objectives of AMAP are identifying trends and affects on human and wildlife health due to
persistent organic pollutants (POP), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), heavy metals (HM) and
radiation. All of these pollutants are toxic and both EPA and AMAP are concerned with the health
affects of toxic pollutants on indigenous people and wildlife in Alaska and the Artic. Other
concerns of AMAP include global climate change, ultra-violet radiation and acidification of arctic
lakes. Indigenous people of the Artic, including Alaskan natives, also participate in AMAP on
various levels. Scientists throughout the world and within AMAP collect and assess existing
environmental information for the Artic and sub-artic environment with the purpose of producing
integrated assessment reports on the status and trends of the conditions of the Artic ecosystems,
including the health of its indigenous peoples (AMAP, 2004). There have been several excellent
reports generated by AMAP which describe current environmental health issues facing the wildlife
and indigenous peoples of the Artic, including Alaska (AMAP, 1997; AMAP, 2003; AMAP, 2004).
The full reports can be viewed and downloaded at www.amap.no.
1
Artic Monitoring & Assessment Program Study Area (AMAP, 2004).
Many parts of Alaska are pristine, untouched by pollution. However, Alaska also has thousands of
hazardous waste sites including active and formerly used defense sites (FUDs), National Priority
List (NPL) or Superfund Sites, active and abandoned mine sites, solid and industrial waste landfills,
as will be described in this document. One purpose of this document is to identify local sources of
contaminants (POP, PAH, HM, radiation) in Alaska. Chapter 2.0, Chapter 3.0, Chapter 4.0 and
Chapter 5.0 discuss local sources of POP, PAH, HM and radiation in Alaska, respectively.
In addition, Alaska has a high incidence rate for many types of cancer when compared to the lower
48 states. A primary purpose of this document is to bring available cancer statistics to light for
Alaska’s residents as well as for epidemiologists and environmental scientists working in Alaska.
Chapter 6.0 summarizes some of the available cancer statistics for Alaska. It is hoped that this
information will be used by concerned residents, epidemiologists, scientists and others in an attempt
to discover what relationship the high rate of cancer may have to local sources of contaminants in
Alaska’s environment.
2
2.0 Persistent Organic Pollutants in Alaska
2.1
Health Effects of Persistent Organic Pollutants
Persistent organic pollutants (POP) include the chlorinated pesticides-aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, and
toxaphene, as well as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins &
dibenzofurans (PCDD/F), and brominated flame retardants (AMAP, 2004). POP have common
physical and chemical properties that allow them to remain in the Arctic environment including the
ability to be transported long distances via air and water; the ability to persist in the environment;
the ability to bioaccumulate or magnify up the food chain; the ability to cause disease in wildlife
and humans. Other persistent organic pollutants include butylated tin, methylated mercury and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). New POP, such as chlorinated paraffins, brominated diphenyl
ethers and other flame retardants are being characterized and studied in the environment, however
their health affects and transportation mechanisms are not as well known.
The ability of POP to persist in Alaska’s environment, bioaccumulate up the food chain, and to
enable disease earns them the reputation of the most widespread and toxic group of pollutants. POP
have been documented in Alaska on all trophic levels including, but not limited to, lichens and
mosses of the Arctic tundra, marine invertebrates of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, resident and
anadromous fish such as burbot (Lota lota), arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), arctic grayling
(Thymallus arcticus), arctic cod (Boreogadis saida), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), top
level predators such as the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), sea otter
(Enhydra lutris), northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus), ringed seals (Phoca hispida), bearded
seals (Erignathus barbatus), resident and transient killer whales (Orcinus orca), beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas), bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus), Stellar sea lion (Eumetopias
jubatus), Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens), polar bears (Ursus maritimus), and man (Homo
sapien) (AMAP, 2004).
In wildlife, mass mortality among sea mammals (seals, porpoises, dolphins and whales) has been
linked to contamination with PCB which is thought to lead to a suppression of the immune system,
making them more susceptible to the morbillivirus, a phocine distemper virus (AMAP, 2003).
A higher incidence of infectious disease is also apparent in contaminated sea otters (Enhydra lutris)
environmentally exposed to PCB (AMAP, 2004). Sea otters in Alaska’s western Aleutian Islands
were found to have PCB levels in their livers that were 38 times greater than otters living in
southeast Alaska (AMAP, 2004). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed the southwest
Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (USFWS, 2006). Higher concentrations of PCB are also
present in endangered Stellar sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) living in the western Aleutian Islands
compared to the Stellar sea lions living in the Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska. Monitoring is
required to determine if there is a relationship between the hundreds of formerly used defense sites
and three atomic blasts that occurred in the Aleutian Islands and the decline of the marine mammals
that inhabit these islands?
There are many potential human health affects related to exposure of POP including but not limited
to: cancer, birth defects, immune system defects, altered sex hormone balance, neurological affects,
behavioral abnormalities, altered metabolism and specific organ dysfunction, infertility, low birth
3
weight, abnormal development of the fetus resulting in abnormal neurodevelopment, susceptibility
to infection in infancy, elevated childhood blood pressure, asthma, chloracne, skin rashes and
lesions (Carpenter et al., 1998; AMAP, 2004). Some POP are carcinogens while others act on the
nervous, reproductive or immune systems of both humans and wildlife. Some POP mimic the
estrogen and androgen hormones of the mammalian endocrine system, called endocrine disruptors,
having multiple subtle affects which are just now being understood. Marine mammals and birds are
generally susceptible to the same diseases that are associated with exposure to POP as seen in
humans. The exact biochemical mechanisms by which toxic pollutants trigger their multiple affects
remains unknown for some diseases like cancer. Multiple toxins can trigger multiple affects or
suppress the effect of another toxic pollutant. Although we may never be able to establish an exact
cause and effect relationship between toxic compounds in our environment and cancer, we do know
enough not to ingest these compounds in our drinking water, the air we breathe, or the food we eat.
The primary, local sources of POP in Alaska are solid and industrial waste landfills, the open
burning and incineration of solid waste, active and formerly used defense sites (FUDs), National
Priority List (NPL) or Superfund sites, federal, state and privately owned contaminated sites. Most
villages and boroughs in Alaska are spread out and not connected by roads. Transportation of solid
and hazardous waste out of the local community is expensive and often not logistically possible.
Therefore, solid and hazardous waste tend to remain where they are created. Disposal of waste in
the local community remains a health concern. In Alaska, open burning of solid waste or garbage is
routine, although not legal. Restrictions on open burning are generally not enforced in rural
communities. Dioxins (PCDD/Fs) are some of the most toxic substances know to man and can
enter the environment as by-products of incomplete combustion or low temperature incineration of
chlorine containing compounds such as plastics prevalent in solid waste (AMAP, 2004). The
primary route of exposure to people from this source of dioxins is from inhalation of airborne
contaminants.
There are many un-monitored, Class III, municipal solid waste landfills in rural Alaska, in addition
to industrial solid waste monofills, that may be sources of POP in Alaska. Monitoring is required to
determine the extent and nature of potential contamination from these sources. Small drinking
water systems and private drinking water wells are not regulated under the SDWA and may be act
as a route of exposure to local residents. Monitoring of small system and private wells is needed to
determine if residents are being exposed to POP and other contaminants in their drinking water.
The following sections describe some of the local sources of POP in Alaska’s environment
including hazardous waste sites, Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDs), solid and industrial waste
landfills and drinking water.
2.2
Contaminated Sites in Alaska
The mission of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (ADEC) Contaminated
Sites Program is to protect public safety, public health and the environment by identifying,
overseeing and conducting the cleanup and management at contaminated sites in Alaska and by
preventing releases from underground storage tank systems and unregulated aboveground storage
tanks (www.state.ak.us/dec/spar/csp/index.htm.). ADEC administers the Contaminated Sites
Program through regulations found at 18 AAC 75. ADEC manages or co-manages the investigation
and remediation of all federal, state, native and privately owned contaminated properties within
Alaska, including those with leaking undergrounds storage tanks (LUSTs).
4
ADEC’s in-house Contaminated Sites Program database was queried to quantify the number of
contaminated sites and LUST sites in Alaska (Table 1). There are an estimated 3,513 open and 885
closed hazardous waste sites in Alaska, not including 2,297 open and closed LUST sites (ADEC,
2004a). There are currently an estimated 1,200 Department of Defense (DOD) contaminated sites
in Alaska (ADEC, 2004a). The DOD is responsible for six of the twelve NPL sites in Alaska and
approximately one-third of all active contaminated sites in Alaska. In addition, to active military
base sites, there are inactive military or formerly used defense sites (FUDs). Hazardous waste sites
in Alaska include Superfund or National Priority List (NPL) Sites; active military base sites;
formerly used defense sites (FUDS); and those owned or controlled by the State of Alaska. Active
contaminated sites, including LUST sites, are presented by City and order of cleanup priority (high,
medium, low) in Appendix A- Contaminated Sites in Alaska by City (ADEC, 2004a).
Table 1. Contaminated Sites and LUST Summary for Alaska (ADEC, 2004a).
Site Description
Total Number of Sites
Status
in Alaska
Total Number of Contaminated Sites
3,513
Active, Inactive, No Further Remedial
Action Planned, Closed
Total Number of LUST Sites
2,297
Open & Closed
Total Number of FUD Sites
409 = ADEC Estimate
Active, Inactive, No Further Remedial
625= ACOE Estimate
Action Planned, Closed
Total Number of DOD
944
Active or Inactive (not including FUDs)
Contaminated Sites
Total Number of DOD LUST Sites
70
Active or Inactive (not including FUDs)
Total Number of Superfund Sites
94
Active or Inactive
(CERCLA)
Total Number of Contaminated Sites
556
Active, Inactive, No Further Remedial
Owned by or PRP is State of Alaska
Action Planned, Closed
The location of all National Priority List sites, FUDs, active Department of Defense (DOD)
contaminated sites, and state owned or controlled contaminated sites in Alaska (not including LUST
sites) are displayed in Appendix B- Figure 1. Aleutian Region Contaminated Sites; Figure 2.
Bristol Bay Region Contaminated Sites; Figure 3. Copper River Region Contaminated Sites; Figure
4. Interior Region Contaminated Sites; Figure 5. Kenai Region Contaminated Sites; Figure 6.
Northern Region Contaminated Sites; Figure 7. Southcentral Region Contaminated Sites; Figure 8.
Southeast Region Contaminated Sites; Figure 9. Western Region Contaminated Sites; Figure 10.
Kodiak Region Contaminated Sites (ADEC, 2004a).
As shown in Figures 1 through 10, there are hundreds of contaminated sites located along Alaska’s
coast and adjacent to Alaska’s freshwater resources (rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands). Additional
monitoring and assessment are required in these areas to determine the spatial extent of
contamination, impacts on estuarine sediments, deltas, lakes, rivers and streams wetlands, and to
ascertain impacts on fish, wildlife and human health. The number of contaminated sites, including
LUST sites, within select Cities or geographical areas can be very high. For example, there are
approximately 427 contaminated sites in the Anchorage area; 377 contaminated sites in the
Fairbanks area; 317 contaminated sites on the Kenai Peninsula; 98 contaminated sites in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough; and 93 contaminated sites on Kodiak Island (population 13,811).
There are hundreds of hazardous waste sites on Alaska’s Aleutian Islands including 374
contaminated sites on Adak Island, 57 near Unalaska, 56 on Amchitka Island, 19 near Dutch Harbor
and 18 near Cold Bay to mention some (Appendix A).
5
The volume of waste disposed of at each contaminated site may be unknown. Contaminants may
have been once contained in thousands of drums or multiple underground storage tanks. For
example, at the King Salmon Air Force Station it is estimated that over 500,000 drums with
unknown contents have been buried adjacent to King Salmon and Eskimo Creeks. Many
contaminated sites have not been investigated or remediated and the nature and spatial extent of
contamination as well the potential threat to human and ecological health is not known for many
contaminated sites throughout Alaska. Contaminated sites can include all categories of toxic
pollutants: PCB, dioxins, PAH, petroleum product, heavy metals, pesticides and radionuclides. The
monitoring, assessment and restoration of contaminated sites is one of Alaska’s environmental
priorities due to the toxicity of contaminants present, their ability to persist in the environment,
proximity to towns and villages, the unknown volume and unknown spatial contamination, the
toxicological threat posed to human and wildlife health.
2.2.1 Cleanup Levels
ADEC’s Contaminated Sites Program cleanup levels for soil and groundwater are found at 18 AAC
75 .340 and 18 AAC 75.345, respectively. Cleanup levels for contaminants in soil vary based on
whether a site is located in the artic zone or not and proximity to the water table, among other
factors (18 AAC 75.340 Tables A1 and A2). Site specific alternative soil cleanup levels can be
developed by the PRP using site specific inhalation or ingestion levels and/or soil characteristics (18
AAC 75.340 Tables B1 and B2). ADEC’s cleanup levels for groundwater are found in Table C (18
AAC 75.345). Groundwater contaminant cleanup levels may equal a concentration ten (10) times
the cleanup levels in Table C, if groundwater is not a current source of drinking water. The PRP
may also perform a site-specific Risk Assessment that, depending upon routes of exposure and
types of contaminants present, can ultimately result in alternative cleanup levels and methods (18
AAC75.340). ADEC’s Contaminated Sites Program has also developed sediment quality guidelines
for contaminated sites (ADEC, 2001a).
2.2.2 Institutional Controls
ADEC’s Contaminated Sites Program may, in its discretion, approve a cleanup level that allows
contamination to remain on-site above what is considered to be safe for residential use or does not
allow groundwater to be used as a drinking water source (ADEC, 2002). Institutional controls are
legal or administrative tools designed to prevent or reduce human and/or ecological exposure to any
contamination remaining at a site and to prevent activities which may result in increased exposure
to or the spread of contamination. Institutional controls may provide the requirement for and
maintenance of physical measures, such as fences and signs, to limit an activity that might result in
exposure to a hazardous substance at the site. Institutional controls may include the requirement for
and maintenance of engineering measures, such as liners and caps, to limit exposure to a hazardous
substance. Institutional controls can also include restrictive covenants, easements, deed restrictions,
or other measures that would be examined during a routine title search. Institutional controls can
limit site use or site conditions over time or provide notice of any residual contamination and a
zoning restriction or land use plan by a local government with land use authority. Institutional
controls, such as capping of contaminants, can leave large volumes of contaminants in place. When
contaminants are left in place or site closure is approved with soil and groundwater contamination
present, additional written institutional controls, such as deed restrictions or easements may be
6
needed to address the potential for public exposure and future off-site movement of contaminated
soil and groundwater.
In addition to the 3,513 open, contaminated sites, there are 885 closed contaminated sites in Alaska.
Closed contaminated sites are designated “No Further Remedial Action Planned”. This does not
signify that contamination is not present but that contamination may be allowed to remain at these
sites because it is not possible, practical or cost effective to remove. Sites deemed “No Further
Remedial Action Planned” usually require the use of an institutional control and/or the requirement
to monitor soil or groundwater until such time that ADEC determines it is no longer required. For
example, at the King Salmon Air Force Station an estimated 500,000 barrels (contents unknown)
were disposed of from the 1950s through the 1970s (ADEC, 2004a). Approximately 200 drums
were removed in 1984, and 26,000 drums were removed in 1991. In 1997 and 1998, limited
removal actions, re-contouring, and capping activities were conducted at North Barrel Bluffs. The
Final Record of Decision states that based on current site conditions and the successful
implementation of interim remedial actions, USAF, ADEC, and EPA have selected a plan of
institutional controls (site-access and land-use restrictions), bluff inspection and maintenance,
continued operation of the water-treatment system, and continued monitoring, with “no further
remedial action planned”, as the final action for the North and South Bluff (ADEC, 2004a).
Remediation of the North and South Bluff areas has left approximately over 400,000 barrels
(contents unknown) of potentially toxic waste in place. Buried drums and dumped items in the
North and South Bluff sites have already impacted King Salmon Creek, Eskimo Creek and have the
potential to impact the wetlands adjacent to the Naknek River and Bristol Bay. Both King Salmon
Creek and Eskimo Creek have recently been removed from Category 4 (Impaired Water) on
ADEC’s 303(d) list and placed in Category 2 “ attaining some uses but insufficient or no data are
available to determine if remaining uses are being attained”. The institutional controls being
implemented at King Salmon and Eskimo Creeks are thought to be sufficient to allow for attainment
of water quality standards (WQS). A contaminated site that is removed from the 303(d) list but has
large volumes of hazardous waste still in-place may still pose a significant threat to human and
wildlife health. The King Salmon Air Force is just one example of the potential for lingering
contamination to be present at contaminated sites that are deemed “No Further Remedial Action
Planned”. Institutional controls are being implemented on many sites throughout Alaska, leaving
large volumes of toxic compounds in place, potentially threatening fish, wildlife and human health.
2.2.3 Water Quality Standards at Contaminated Sites
ADEC’s water quality standards (WQS) apply to all surface waters of the State including surface
waters at hazardous waste sites. Typically, ADEC’s Contaminated Sites Program staff are the lead
at contaminated sites and ADEC’s Water Division staff monitor the response action to insure that
the WQS are achieved (ADEC, 2001b). The Contaminated Sites Program staff utilize risk
assessments to develop groundwater, sediment and soil cleanup levels. Risk assessments cannot be
used to develop surface water cleanup levels less stringent than the WQS because the WQS are the
regulatory action level for surface water and cannot be waived by the cleanup project manager. The
WQS standards apply to wetlands and subsurface zones within wetlands affected by cleanup actions
and at the soil/water interface of any surface water river, stream, spring, lake or pond. The
Contaminated Sites Program staff make risk assessment decisions, which may allow for natural
7
attenuation of contaminants in wetlands, determine how to achieve WQS at contaminated sites and
in what time frame, with the goal of achieving WQS in the receiving water.
A cursory review of the contaminated sites database revealed that there are many current locations
in Alaska where contaminated sites are affecting surface waters and/or wetlands (Table 2). For
example, on Amchitka Island, it is known that all drainages within the nuclear test boring area are
contaminated with chromium and diesel range organics and that the extent of radionuclide
contamination is still unknown (ADEC, 2004a). Also on Amchitka Island, the Kiriloff Point Seeps
are a 15 acre area that includes wetlands and a small stream where petroleum product is leaching
into Constantine Harbor along a beach bluff. Again, on Amchitka Island, the St. Makarius Bay
Landfill is leaching hazardous constituents into marine surface waters along an intertidal beach. On
Kodiak Island, 3,000 55-gallon drums containing hazardous waste are buried adjacent to Buskin
Lakes, the main drinking water source for the U.S. Coast Guard. On Kodiak Island, along both
Buskin Beach and Womens Bay, hazardous waste is leaching onto the beach and into intertidal
State waters. Both Lake Iliamna (a drinking water source) and an adjacent creek have been
contaminated with benzene from an adjacent LUST site. The local school obtains its drinking water
from a groundwater well located 100 feet from the contaminated LUST property. Table 2 lists just
twenty examples of potentially hundreds of contaminated sites throughout Alaska that are impacting
surface and drinking water, and have the potential to impact human and wildlife health. These are
some of Alaska’s most seriously impaired waters since associated toxicity has the potential to
impact all trophic levels, from benthic invertebrates to man.
2.2.4 Future Contaminated Site Studies
Follow-up monitoring and assessment are required to identify impacts on drinking water quality,
sediment quality, and biota in areas adjacent to contaminated sites that have been declared closed,
inactive or designated “No Further Remedial Action Planned”. Monitoring and assessment are
needed for drinking water wells, sediments, rivers, lakes and wetlands, fish and wildlife, as well as
for human health in areas adjacent to or impacted by contaminated sites. Sediments within estuaries
and deltas, and sediment dwelling organisms such as mollusks, as well as resident fish should
especially be targeted for follow-up monitoring because this is where contaminants tend to
accumulate. Follow-up monitoring and health assessments are required where institutional controls
have left large volumes of contaminants in place and where contamination has spread into surface
waters of the State. A comprehensive review of the Contaminated Sites Database is recommended
to identify those drinking and surface waters of the State being impacted by contaminated sites.
These are some of Alaska’s most seriously impaired waterbodies and should be targeted for
drinking water, surface water, sediment, fish, shellfish, wildlife and human health monitoring.
Why are there so many contaminated military sites and how well is the Army Corp of Engineers
and other military remediation processes working? DOD and DOE are reluctant to perform
remediation and cleanup due to high costs. They (Navy, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard) all say
they are the lead agency. EPA’s recently formulated “1 Cleanup Rule” is supposed to provide a
solution to the infighting and provide cleanup levels/methods acceptable to all. However, it appears
more investigation and oversight may be required to determine why there are so many military
contaminated sites, to improve and expedite the cleanup process, and evidently more oversight may
be needed to monitor military disposal practices.
8
Table 2. Examples of Contaminated Sites Impacting Surface Waters in Alaska (ADEC, 2004a).
Site Name & Location
Problem
A-J Mine, Juneau
PCB, metals, petroleum product
DOE Base Camp, Amchitka Island
Diesel Range Organics, Chromium and Radionuclides
Kiriloff Point Seeps, Amchitka Island
Above Ground Storage tanks, petroleum product.
St. Makarius Bay Landfill, Amchitka
Heavy Metals, miscellaneous compounds
Wastewater Lagoon, Amchitka
PCB
Buskin Lake, Kodiak
3,000 55-gallon drums, & petroleum product
Long Island, Near Kodiak
100s of drums with unknown contents disposed of in
ravine between Dolgoi Lake and Cook Bay, PCB
LUSTs
Surface Water Impacted
Contaminants discharging to Gold Creek above Capitol
City’s municipal drinking water well field.
All drainages within the nuclear bore hole drilling areas
impacted.
15 acre wetlands and stream flowing into Constantine
Harbor.
Leachate seeping onto beach, contaminated sediments
present.
PCB present in sediments within lagoon and down gradient
drainages.
Adjacent to Buskin Lake, main drinking water source for
U.S. Coast Guard.
Site located between Dolgoi Lake and Cook Bay
LUST site adjacent to Buskin River
USCG, Building A-711, Kodiak
Cannery Loop Drilling Mud Pit, Kenai
Pedro Bay School, Lake Ilimana,
Kotzebue Air Force Station, Kotzebue
Cape Romanzof Landfill, Scammon Bay
Old Matanuska Townsite, Palmer
Valdez Creek Mine, Cantwell
Cordova Electric Corp., Cordova
1.5 million gallons of drilling muds & associated
hazardous waste
500 drums leaked, Gasoline (Benzene) & Diesel
Former Air Force Landfill, Unknown quantities of POP
from landfill operation
Former Air Force Landfill, PCB, metals, POP
Chenega Bay Saltry, Near Seward
PCB, Petroleum Product, solvents
Waste Motor Oil dumped into well, mine tailings.
Waste oil, quantity and spatial extent of contamination
unknown
Solvent, PCB, Petroleum Product
ADOT Maintenance Shop, Valdez
Trident Seafoods Fuel, Sand Point
Toksook Bay School, Toksook Bay
Petroleum Product
Diesel spill
4,550 Gallon Diesel Spill
Nome Area Site #16, Nome
600 Drums with POP
9
Mud pit located in wetland below water table, extent of
contamination unknown
Lake Ilimana and adjacent creek impacted, school drinking
water impacted.
PCB & Pesticides seeping into Kotzebue Sound and former
drinking water supply lake for AFS.
Landfill in Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, surface
water pathways present.
Wetlands and surrounding area impacted.
Leaching into Susitna River and Valdez Creek Floodplain.
Waste oil seeping into Eyak Lake- Class A PWS.
Surface water runoff transporting contaminants into Crab
Bay.
Seepage into Copper River.
Spill impacted 4.5 miles of ocean shoreline.
Toksook Bay & Toksook Bay Elementary School PWS
Contaminated
Moonlight Springs, PWS for City of Nome is on-site.
2.3
Formerly Used Defense Sites
One of the most numerous and greatest sources of POP in Alaska are Formerly Used
Defense Sites (FUDs). FUDs are lands that were used for former radar communications,
naval defense, airfields and coastal defense sites during World War II, and are not
currently be owned by the DOD. Since 1986, all FUDs have been transferred out of
DOD’s ownership or control and are now owned or operated by other federal, state, local
or tribal governments or private parties (ADEC, 2004a). The Army Corp of Engineers
(ACOE) currently administers funds to private contractors and oversees the remediation
of FUDs. All site history records for FUD sites reside with the ACOE FUDs Program
located on Elmendorff Air Force Base.
FUDs are located throughout Alaska including State and National Wildlife Refuges,
National Marine Sanctuaries, National Parks and Monuments. These lands are primarily
managed by the State of Alaska, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park
Service (NPS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The USFWS, BLM, ACOE
and other military branches continue to assess and mitigate hazardous waste on FUD
lands under their care. Monitoring is required to determine the extent of contamination
on National and State lands at un-remediated sites where contamination may have already
seeped off-site into nearby estuaries, wetlands and freshwaters possibly impacting fish
and wildlife health. This is one of Alaska’s monitoring priorities. Precise identification
and mapping of known FUD sites, sampling of estuaries, rivers, lakes and wetlands and
their biota, as well as remediation, are necessary where contamination may have spread
off-site into waters of the State.
FUD site, Adak Island, Alaska, USFWS.
FUD site, Attu Island, Alaska, USFWS.
10
Estimates for the number of FUDs in Alaska range from 625 to about ten thousand
(ADEC, 2004a; pers. comm. Roberts, 2004). FUDs range in complexity from isolated
unexploded munitions sites to large scale disposal of toxic waste. The volume of waste
disposed may have been contained in a single 55-gallon drum or hundreds of drums.
Spilled contaminants may include PCB, dioxins, DDT and other pesticides, metals, PAH,
petroleum fuels, asbestos, solvents, tars, resins, lead and nickel-cadmium batteries,
explosive ordinances, chemical warfare agents (nerve agents, mustard gas, hydrogen
cyanide, lewisite, phosgene), among other unknown components.
The spatial extent of contamination at many sites has not been documented and
remediation has not been completed at a majority of FUD sites, leaving estuaries,
freshwaters, wildlife and people exposed. When and where remediation does occur, it
generally does not extend beyond the DOD land ownership boundary, again possibly
allowing off-site contamination. Remediation of FUDs and other contaminated sites are
based on human health and ecological risk assessments. FUD sites can be removed from
the ACOE remediation process if the military determines that they are not responsible for
the contamination. Many sites have been listed by the military as requiring “No further
action”. This does not mean that contamination is not present, it just means the military
assumes no responsibility, and contamination remains un-mitigated. This may be why
there is such a high discrepancy between the number of FUDs reported by the military as
requiring cleanup (625) and the total number of FUDs in Alaska (~10,000). Remediation
and institutional controls can leave high levels of contaminants behind with the
assumption that off-site contamination will not occur. Many FUD sites have unrestricted
access, are not fenced, and are not posted as being hazardous (pers. comm. Pikul, 2004).
Dermal contact and ingestion of contaminants can occur at FUD sites used by subsistence
hunters who employ FUD sites for camping or lodging. The extent of exposure to
wildlife and people remains unknown for many FUD sites.
Concerned residents, epidemiologists and environmental scientists should obtain all
available records on FUDs in Alaska. These records may currently reside with the Army
Corp of Engineer’s FUD Program in a trailer at Elmendorff Air Force Base and may be
the only historic information available which would be very useful in identifying toxic
hotspots in Alaska’s landscape.
2.4
Solid Waste in Alaska
2.4.1 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
ADEC has primacy of the solid waste program in Alaska and implements the program
through Alaska Administrative Code found at 18 AAC 60. There are three types of
municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) in Alaska; Class I, II and III. Only Alaska has
Class III landfills (pers. comm. Roberts, 2004). A Class I MSWLF is a landfill that
accepts, for incineration or disposal, 20 tons or more of municipal solid waste daily based
on an annual average (18 AAC 60.300(1)).
11
A Class II MSWLF is a landfill that accepts, for incineration or disposal, less than 20 tons
daily of municipal solid waste or other solid wastes based on an annual average; is
located on a site where there is no evidence of groundwater pollution caused or
contributed to by the landfill; is not connected by road to a Class I MSWLF or, if
connected by road, is located more than 50 miles from a Class I MSWLF; or serves a
community that experiences for at least three months each year, an interruption in access
to surface transportation, preventing access to a Class I MSWLF; or, with no practicable
waste management alternative, serves a community with a landfill located in an area that
annually receives 25 inches or less of precipitation (18 AAC 60.300(2)).
A Class III MSWLF is a landfill that is not connected by road to a Class I MSWLF or, if
connected by road, is located more than 50 miles from a Class I MSWLF; accepts, for
disposal, ash from incinerated municipal waste in quantities less than one ton daily on an
annual average, or receives less than five tons daily of municipal solid waste, based on an
annual average; and is not located in a place where public access is restricted (18 AAC
60.300(3)).
ADEC issues permits for all three classes of MSWLFs in Alaska as well as for nonmunicipal landfills also known as solid waste monofills (Table 3). The majority of solid
waste landfill permits currently issued by ADEC are for non-municipal landfills (97) and
for Class III MSWLF camps and villages (81) (ADEC, 2004b). There are an estimated
152 un-permitted Class III MSWLF and 83 expired Class III MSWLF permits in Alaska.
There are 181 un-permitted non-municipal landfills and 130 expired non-municipal
landfill permits in Alaska. The surface and groundwater monitoring requirements vary
depending on MSWLF class. There are no surface water or groundwater monitoring
requirements for Class II or Class III landfills in Alaska, unless ADEC has reason to
suspect a potential water quality or human health impact due to the landfill.
Table 3. Permit Status of MSWLF in Alaska (ADEC, 2004b).
Category
Current Denied Expired In Progress
Class I
10
1
Class II
13
11
2
Class III (camp)
28
3
41
2
Class III
53
4
42
10
(village)
Non-Municipal
97
5
130
6
Other
1
3
Un-permitted
1
6
14
138
Withdrawn
1
3
2
7
Total
13
35
90
254
Percent
1.5%
4%
39.5%
181
43
14
433
47
50%
5%
2.4.2 Industrial Waste Monofills
In addition to MSWLF, there are numerous industrial waste monofills in Alaska which
accept specific types of waste such as oil and gas drilling waste, mining waste, asbestos,
sewage solids, wood waste, inert waste, or other industrial solid waste (18 AAC 60.400).
Monofills, as well as MSWLF, can be located in floodplains and wetlands and each
newly permitted monofill is required to have a liner. Those monofills used for the
storage of drilling waste for more than one year require a permit from ADEC.
12
There are also numerous inactive reserve pits in Alaska. Inactive reserve pits are
monofills that received drilling waste prior to January 28, 1996. The locations of all
inactive reserve pits and small (Class III) MSWLF in Alaska are not known, although
some historical monofills created during the 1960’s and 1970’s have been mapped by
ADEC (pers. comm. Roberts, 2004). Some inactive reserve pits were formerly used for
the disposal of millions of gallons of drilling waste, are now considered hazardous waste
sites by ADEC.
Today, there are surface water and groundwater monitoring requirements for drilling
waste monofills, sewage sludge monofills and for the closure of inactive reserve pits.
The monitoring parameters for these types of monofills depend on their proximity to a
surface water body, the groundwater table, permafrost, drinking water sources and human
habitation. Monofills can be closed with contaminants left in place that exceed the
contemporary cleanup standards for contaminated sites. Post-closure monitoring is
required for drilling waste monofills, inactive reserve pits and for other types of monofills
as required by ADEC on a case-by-case basis.
Landfills and monofills can leach hazardous constituents which can impact aquatic biota,
drinking water quality and human health. There are no monitoring requirements for
Class II and Class III MSWLF in Alaska. This is a monitoring gap because the majority
of MSWLF in Alaska are Class III (Table 3). There are an estimated 152 un-permitted
and 83 expired Class III MSWLF in Alaska. There are an estimated 181 un-permitted
non-municipal landfills in Alaska, and 130 expired non-municipal landfill permits in
Alaska. There are also an unknown number of inactive reserve pits in Alaska, although
some of these have been inventoried and mapped (pers. comm. Roberts, 2004). There are
also an unknown number of small landfills in Alaska that have no permits or records. A
targeted monitoring strategy could be developed to assess drinking water quality, surface
and groundwater quality, sediment and aquatic resources at un-permitted and expired
Class III MSWLF, inactive reserve pits and select industrial waste monofills. Those
Class III landfills that have the potential to impact surface waters of the State and/or
drinking water quality should be targeted along with those inactive reserve pits for which
there are records. Mapping of monofills and MSWLF for each locality is also required.
2.5
Drinking Water in Alaska
ADEC has primacy of the drinking water program and implements the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) through Alaska Administrative Code found at 18 AAC 80. The
primary purpose of the SDWA is to ensure that public water supplies do not adversely
affect the health of the general public. A Public Water System (PWS) is defined as a
system that provides water via piping or other constructed conveyances for human
consumption to at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least 25 people
for at least 60 days each year. Currently, PWS are classified somewhat differently by the
EPA and ADEC in Alaska. There are three types of federally regulated PWS in Alaska:
community water systems (CWS), non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWS), and transient non-community water systems (TNCWS).
13
ADEC’s Drinking Water Program defines PWS based on the number of people served
and duration of annual service. Both CWS and NTNCWS are classified by ADEC as
“Class A” PWS in Alaska. The “Class A” PWS is a public water system that is expected
to serve, year-round, at least 25 individuals; is expected to serve, year-round, at least 15
residential service connections; or regularly serves the same 25 or more individuals for at
least six months of the year. The “Class B” PWS is a PWS that is not a Class A public
water system, and that regularly serves at least 25 individuals each day for at least 60
days of the year. TNCWS are also classified as “Class B” PWS in Alaska. The “Class
C” PWS is a PWS that is not a Class A PWS, a Class B PWS, or a private water system
(18 AAC 80.1990(12)(13)(14)).
In 2003, there were 1,614 federally regulated PWS in Alaska serving a total population of
approximately 605,887 persons (ADEC, 2004c). In 2003, there were 434 CWS and 221
NTNCWS or “Class A” PWS in Alaska. “Class A” PWS represent approximately 21%
of the total number of PWS in Alaska. In 2003, there were 949 “Class B” PWS or
TNCWS in Alaska. This represents about 31% of the total number of PWS in Alaska. In
2003, there were an estimated 1,798 “Class C” PWS (non-federally regulated) in Alaska,
however, the exact number of “Class C” water systems in Alaska is currently unknown
(pers. com. Trask, 2004). “Class C” PWS are being considered for de-regulation by the
State of Alaska. “Class C” PWS represent approximately 48% of the total number of
PWS in Alaska.
Of the 1,614 federally regulated PWS in the State of Alaska, 1,485 (92%) are very small
systems serving 500 persons or less. There were 103 PWS (6.4%) categorized as small
(serving 501 to 3,300 persons), 20 PWS (1.2%) categorized as medium-sized (serving
3,301 to 10,000 persons), 5 PWS (<1%) categorized as large (serving 10,001 to 100,000
persons), and 1 PWS categorized as very large (serving more than 100,000 persons). Of
the 1,614 federally regulated PWS, 1,359 PWS (84.2%) obtain their water from a ground
water source; 234 PWS (14.5%) provide drinking water from a surface water source; and
21 PWS (1.3%) use ground water that has been determined to be directly under the
influence of surface water (ADEC, 2004c).
2.5.1 Drinking Water Monitoring Requirements
The PWS monitoring and reporting requirements vary depending on Class (Table 4). In
Alaska, only “Class A” PWS are required to monitor for toxic compounds including
metals, volatile organic compounds, pesticides, disinfection byproducts, radioactive
contaminants, secondary contaminants and other organic compounds, as listed at 18 AAC
80.300-335.
14
Table 4. Minimum Raw Water Testing Requirements (18 AAC 80.205(c)(2)).
Monitoring
Class A PWS
Class B PWS
Class C PWS
Parameters
Ground
Surface
Ground
Surface
Ground
Surface
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Total Coliform
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bacteria
Nitrate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Inorganic
Chemicals
Volatile Organic
Chemicals
Secondary
Contaminants
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
2.5.2 Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels
Under the SDWA, EPA sets national limits on regulated contaminant levels in drinking
water to ensure that the water is safe for human consumption. These limits are known as
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). A PWS is required to monitor and verify that
the levels of regulated contaminants present in the water do not exceed the MCL. If a
PWS exceeds the MCLs for a given parameter, fails to have its water tested as required or
fails to report test results correctly to ADEC, a monitoring violation occurs. Significant
monitoring violations are generally defined as any major monitoring violation that
occurred during the calendar year. A major monitoring violation, with rare exceptions,
occurs when no samples were taken or no results were reported during a compliance
period.
ADEC’s Drinking Water Compliance & Enforcement Section tracks and enforces
violations of MCLs. Violations of MCLs are stored in ADEC’s Drinking Water Program
database and uploaded to SDWIS every 45 days (pers. comm. Trask, 2004). In 2003, a
total of 4,393 individual violations occurred at 686 PWS (ADEC, 2004c). Of the 4,393
noted individual violations, 66% were for failure to monitor for either a Chemical Rule or
the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). In CY 2003, fifty-eight percent (58%) of the
federally regulated PWSs were in full compliance for all federal drinking water
regulations. This figure represents a slight increase from the 56% of Alaska PWS in full
compliance for all federal drinking water regulations during the CY 2002.
In 2003, a total of 54 health-based MCL violations were opened or issued. Seven
violations were issued to seven systems for exceeding the fecal coliform MCL, 44
violations were issued to 35 systems for exceeding the total coliform MCL, two
violations were issued to two PWS for a thallium MCL exceedance, and one violation
was issued to a PWS for a cadmium MCL exceedance. Sixty-seven PWSs were in
violation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) treatment technique requirements
resulting in 214 violations. Of the 1,614 total federally regulated PWSs, 28% were in
violation of the Total Coliform Rule (a slight increase over 26% in CY 2002) and 12% in
violation of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (a slight increase from 10% in CY 2002).
15
In 2003, a total of 286 PWS (18%) serving 81,161 people were in violation of the
Chemical or Radiological Rules (compared with 14% in CY 2002).
2.5.3 Future Drinking Water Studies
Currently, only “Class A” PWS are required to test for toxic compounds: metals, volatile
organic compounds, radionuclides and inorganic chemicals (Table 4). Currently, of those
“Class A” systems, 286 (18%) had violations of the chemical and/or radiological rule
(ADEC, 2004c). “Class A” PWS represent approximately 21% of the total number of
PWS in Alaska. There are an estimated 1,798 “Class C” PWS in Alaska, however the
exact number of “Class C” PWS in Alaska is currently unknown. The number of “Class
C” PWS in Alaska represents about 50% of the total number of PWS in Alaska. In
addition, it is estimated that there are over 50,000 private wells in Alaska (pers. com.
Ireland, 2004). Monitoring requirements for “Class B” and “Class C” PWS includes
testing for bacteria and nitrates, only (Table 4). ADEC may be phasing out all support of
“Class C” PWS in Alaska. “Class B” and “Class C” PWS represent approximately 79%
of the total number of PWS in Alaska. In addition, there are no monitoring requirements
for private wells. There is a monitoring gap because drinking water quality data for toxic
(chemical and radiological) substances are not available for “Class B” PWS, “Class C”
PWS, and for over 50,000 private wells in Alaska.
What percent of “Class B” PWS, “Class C” PWS and private wells exceed the MCL for
toxic contaminants and what impact is this having on public health? It is recommended
that a monitoring strategy be developed to include targeted monitoring for toxics (volatile
organic compounds, radionuclides, pesticides and inorganics) in “Class B” and “Class C”
PWS and private wells in Alaska. The Drinking Water Protection Area maps developed
by the ADEC Drinking Water Program could be used to develop an area-wide monitoring
survey of tap water from villages and towns with known or suspected contamination
sources and with known MCL violations. The drinking water “Needs Assessment”
recently completed by ADEC’s Drinking Water Program could also be used to guide
monitoring and assessment activities. This is one of Alaska’s monitoring priorities
because drinking water is a primary route of exposure to carcinogenic substances and
many (approximately 79% of PWS) rural Alaskans obtain their drinking water from small
drinking water systems or private wells which are not currently monitored for toxic
substances. Targeted monitoring should occur in towns and villages with suspected
contamination due to FUDs, NPL and LUST sites. This should be one of ADEC’s
highest monitoring priorities because of the link between cancer and the consumption
contaminated drinking water.
16
3.0 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons in Alaska
3.1
Oil Exploration & Extraction
Alaska’s petroleum reserves are vast and extraction occurs both on land and off-shore in
the marine environment. Petroleum hydrocarbons can enter Alaska’s marine, surface
water and groundwater environment during the exploration, extraction and transportation
of Alaska’s crude oil, natural gas, coal and coal bed methane resources. In addition to the
potential for large spills to occur during transportation, oil is discharged during accidental
blowouts and when it is discovered. Low volumes of oil are continually discharged
during the drilling process along with heavy metals and lubricants as process water
containing drill cuttings and muds are disposed directly into estuaries, on land or in deep
injection wells. During offshore exploration and extraction of offshore oil resources, as
in Cook Inlet, produce water containing drill cuttings and muds are disposed of directly
in the marine environment. Drill cuttings and muds may contain low levels of cadmium
and mercury as well as petroleum hydrocarbons and synthetic oils.
Studies conducted around offshore Norwegian oil fields have shown that benthic infauna
can be impacted within 15 square kilometers of an oil rig due to disposal of water-based
muds (AMAP, 1997). Drill cuttings and muds discharged from land based oil wells are
disposed of in monofills located on Alaska’s North Slope tundra. As the earth’s climate
warms, there are concerns that industrial waste monofills, once thought continually
frozen in the permafrost of Alaska’s tundra, may no longer be able to hold their spoils.
Wastewater obtained from land based oil wells is discharged to deep, underground
injection wells. Groundwater monitoring is required to assess the potential impacts on
future drinking water resources.
Alaska’s existing oil fields at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River account for nearly one
quarter of the nation’s annual domestic crude oil production (MMS, 2003). Known oil
and gas provinces are the North Slope, Beaufort Sea and Cook Inlet (ADNR, 2003a).
Alaska’s existing and oil, natural gas, coal, and coal bed-methane exploration and
extraction leases are shown in Appendix B- Figure 11. Existing Oil, Gas, Coal and Coal
Bed Methane Leases in Alaska.
The State of Alaska and Federal government are currently expanding their oil and gas
leasing program in other areas of Alaska and offshore to allow for the exploration and
extraction of oil and gas in an effort to meet the nation’s energy needs. State issued
exploratory licenses allow for the exploration of areas between 10,000 and 500,000 acres
within remote areas of Alaska outside of known oil and gas provinces. Exploratory
licenses have been issued for Norton Sound, the Chukchi Sea and Hope Basins along
Alaska’s north western shoreline, as well as the Copper River and Nenana Basins.
Exploratory licenses and leases are currently being considered for the northern portion of
the Bristol Bay basin in an area totaling about 875,000 acres, as well as the Bristol Bay
coastline extending from Dillingham to Cold Bay (ADNR, 2003b). Exploratory licenses
and leases are currently being considered for the Susitna Basin as well.
17
Alaska’s five-year oil and gas leasing program includes planned State lease sales for the
North Slope Foothills region, Beaufort Sea, and Cook Inlet region. At least a total of 20
lease sales are scheduled over the next five years; 10 on the North Slope, 5 in Cook Inlet
and 5 in the Beaufort Sea. In addition, the entire 425 mile Beaufort Sea coastline, from
the Canadian border to Barrow, within three miles offshore, is currently being considered
for leasing and exploration, a total of about 2 million acres (ADNR, 2003b). This
exploration area will also include upland acreages located along the Beaufort Sea
between the Staines and Colville Rivers. The five areawide leases in the North Slope
Foothills area contain about 7 million acres of land located between ANWR and the
National Petroleum Reserve (NPR) of Alaska. The five areawide lease sales in the Cook
Inlet region will include a total of about 4.2 million acres and include uplands located in
the Matanuska-Susitna Valleys, the Anchorage Bowl, the western and southern Kenai
Peninsula as well as the western shore of Cook Inlet from the Beluga River to Harriet
Point. Tidal and submerged lands in upper Cook Inlet, from Kink and Turnagain Arms
south to Anchor Point and Tuxedni Bay will also be included in Cook Inlet sales.
Proposed oil and gas leased land sales are displayed in Appendix B- Figure 12. Proposed
Oil & Gas Leases.
Oil and gas extraction are also expanding on federally administered lands in Alaska both
on and offshore. Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced recently that 8.8 million
acres of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (NPR) would be opened for exploration
(ADN, 2004a). Oil and gas exploration also occur in Federally leased waters which
extend from 3 to 200 nautical miles offshore. Federal leases in Alaska’s Cook Inlet are
currently being issued for a two million acre area extending from 3 to 30 miles offshore
in depths ranging from 30 to 650 feet (MMS, 2003). Offshore leases are also being
considered fro Norton Sound, the Chukchi Sea and Hope Basin.
America’s desire to become more energy self-sufficient and rely on Alaska’s oil reserves
poses some hard questions and great challenges when considering a statewide monitoring
strategy. As Alaska expands its oil and gas program to other regions of the State,
monitoring is required to understand the cumulative impact of multiple oil platforms on
migration routes, reproductive patterns and populations of threatened and endangered
marine mammal species. It is essential that monitoring protocols be conducted to
establish baseline biological conditions, and used to prevent impacts on marine mammal
and bird diversity and abundance. There is a 58% to 99% chance that between one and
eight spills of 1000 barrels of oil will occur in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (AMAP,
1997). Monitoring is required to document baseline sediment and water quality
conditions and understand the impact of low level hydrocarbons on water and sediment
quality, on fish and shellfish health, on subsistence hunting and fishing and on human
health. Alaska has come along way in its prevention and response capabilities, however,
as Alaska expands its oil and gas program to other regions of the State, it will be
imperative that adequate oil spill monitoring, response and cleanup provisions are in
place. This will continue to be one of Alaska’s major environmental challenges in the
21st century.
18
4.0 Heavy Metals in Alaska
Major anthropogenic sources of heavy metals in Alaska include combustion of fossil
fuels, solid waste landfills, underground injection control wells, contaminated sites, waste
incineration and mining. Coal burning is the major source of mercury, arsenic, chromium
and selenium while combustion of oil is the most important source of nickel and
vanadium (AMAP, 1997). The industrial complexes of China and Russia are thought to
account for more than half of the air pollution measured over the Arctic. Emissions from
the select smelters in the Urals and Norlisk area of Russia are thought to account for
3,000 tonnes of copper and 2,700 tonnes of nickel in the atmosphere, annually (AMAP,
1997). The prevailing winds send these pollutants to Alaska via the Siberian high and
Aleutian low pressure systems. High levels of lead and copper have been measured in
moss samples collected near the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in Alaska, although the source
was not identified. Local oil refineries may be a source of heavy metals in the tundra.
Biological monitoring is needed to fit the pieces together to determine where these metals
originate from and what effect they may have on caribou and reindeer of Alaska’s tundra
where reports of bone marrow and liver abnormalities are being reported (ANSC, 2004).
Currently, the National Park Service is conducting some monitoring for toxics in air over
Alaska’s National Parks. Alaska needs a statewide air toxics monitoring program.
4.1
Hardrock Mining in Alaska
Alaska has some of the most extensive deposits of precious metals (gold, silver, copper
and zinc) in the world. Currently, there are six large hard rock mines permitted in
Alaska; Fort Knox, Red Dog, Illinois, Greens Creek, and True North mines. There are
currently (2004) three large mine permits currently under review; Pogo, Donlin Creek
and Kensington Projects. State and federal mining claims are presented in Appendix BFigure 13. State & Federal Mining Claims. Hardrock mines process millions of tons of
ore a year and use cyanide and other chemicals to leach the gold from the ore. Wet
tailings are left over after the ore has been processed. This process water requires a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and/or ADEC wastewater
discharge permit if it is discharged to surface or ground waters. For example, the Greens
Creek mine on Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska discharges to ground water, fresh
water (Greens Creek and Zinc Creek) and an estuary (Hawk Inlet). Groundwater, surface
water and biological monitoring are required by ADEC to insure compliance with acute
and chronic, aquatic life-based water quality standards.
“For hardrock mines located inland, a common practice for permanent tailings storage is
to construct a dam across the mouth of stream, divert the stream, and deposit the tailings
in the drainage. At the Ft. Knox gold mine, outside of Fairbanks, over 1,000 acres of the
upper Fish Creek drainage will eventually be consumed by tailings. Through the
construction of a dam, the stream is converted to a waste treatment facility, and thus is no
longer subjected to NPDES regulations, unless there is discharge from the facility. Mines
that employ this type of treatment don’t apply for discharge permits because the facility
is designed for ‘zero discharge’. In theory this means the dam is high enough and the
19
impoundment large enough to hold all tailings, entrained water, normal precipitation and
major storm events so that no fluid escapes from the impoundment” (NAEC, 2004).
Fort Knox Gold Mine (Golder & Assoc., 2004).
Ft. Knox tailings impoundment (NAEC, 2004).
“Although the dams are lined, the drainage impoundments are not. Bedrock has fractures
and cracks which can become conduits for contaminated leachate to seep into ground
water. Roughly two years after mining began, the Ft. Knox tailings impoundment started
leaking. Currently, pumps below the dam keep contamination from reaching
groundwater and lower Fish Creek, mechanically maintaining the operation’s compliance
as a zero discharge facility. However, pumpback containment systems can fail resulting
in the discharge of contaminated groundwater to the environment” (NAEC, 2004).
Monitoring is required to determine if groundwater, streams, wetlands and aquatic life are
being impaired by cyanide and heavy metals leaching from the impoundments. In
Alaska, monitoring and regulation of hardrock mines is extensive. However, additional
monitoring and assessment of the environment surrounding these facilities may be
appropriate to measure impacts on water and wildlife resources.
4.2
Placer Mining
Placer mining and panning for gold are popular in Alaska. Placer mining methods
include both dredging systems and open-cut mining (EPA, 2001). Dredging methods
include small sized suction dredging (< 4inch diameter nozzle); medium sized suction
dredges (4-8 inches nozzle diameter); and mechanical or bucket dredging. Suction
dredge mining employs dredging systems using either hydraulic, floating, suction
systems or mechanical buckets. Suction dredges work the stream from within the stream
bed removing large amounts of overburden to extract gold from alluvial sediments.
Small, medium and mechanical dredging operations are covered by one of three separate,
EPA, General, NPDES permits. The greatest number (1,278) of NPDES authorizations
issued for any water discharge category in Alaska are for small sized suction dredges
20
(ADEC, 2004d). Currently, there are no Federal monitoring requirements for small sized
suction dredges required under the EPA’s General, NPDES permit.
The affects of placer mining on water quality, invertebrates and fish have been well
documented (Madison, 1981). During dredging operations, sediment-rich effluent is
discharged in-stream resulting in high turbidity and sediment loads which can extend far
downstream. Sedimentation can result in loss of salmonid spawning habitat, loss of
juvenile rearing areas and direct mortality due to clogged or damaged gillrakers.
Sedimentation of stream beds can also cause a reduction in macroinvertebrate abundance
and diversity impacting available food sources for juvenile salmonids. Increases in
organic loading may result in decreased dissolved oxygen concentration, increases and
biological and chemical oxygen demand, and result in in-stream anaerobic conditions.
In-stream mining activities mobilize trace metals making them more available for uptake
by fish. Concentrations of arsenic and mercury in streams with active placer mines in
Alaska have been shown to be close to the estimated maximum no-effect concentration
for juvenile Arctic grayling (Mueller and Matz, 2002). Monitoring and inspections are
needed to determine the potential impacts of placer suction dredge mining on water
quality, biota and habitat.
4.3
Abandoned Mines
There are hundreds of abandoned mines in Alaska. Monitoring is required to determine
if acid mine drainage is impacting water quality and biota. Abandoned mines include
both coal and non-coal related mines. In Alaska, the Commissioner of the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) was granted jurisdiction over surface coal
mining and reclamation operations under the Alaska Surface Coal Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1983. “In addition to regulating the coal industry, state and federal
law created the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Program for the purpose of reclaiming
abandoned historic mines. Coal and non-coal abandoned historic mines in Alaska have
been inventoried. Coal mining in Alaska has been well documented and every mine of
significance has been identified. The coal inventory was completed in 1983, and 340
sites were identified. A literature search of known non-coal mines was compiled in 1991,
and 432 sites were identified. The non-coal inventory is incomplete for state, private and
native lands” (ADNR, 2004). However, a fully, mapped inventory of abandoned mines
in Alaska is not currently available. Monitoring and assessment of off-site impacts are
required for Alaska’s abandoned mines.
21
5.0 Radiation in Alaska
5.1
Amchitka Island Nuclear Tests
Major sources of radionuclides in Alaska’s marine environment include releases from
underground nuclear test explosions, European reprocessing plants, nuclear submarine
accidents, dumped and spilled radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel and old nuclear
reactors. The U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
detonated three nuclear test blasts (1965, 1969 and 1971) underground on Amchitka
Island, located in Alaska’s eastern Aleutian Island chain (DOE, 2002; EPA, 1998). Each
bomb blast was more powerful than the preceding blast. In 1971, Project Cannikin
detonated a 5-megaton blast one mile underground which resulted in a crater more than a
mile wide and 40 feet deep. The large underground cavities caused by the blasts are now
filled with groundwater, and it is suspected that radioactive elements are seeping into the
local marine environment.
Atomic Energy Commission lowering 5-megaton Spartan Missile
nuclear warhead into Cannikin mile-deep hole on Amchitka Island,
Alaska, November 6, 1971 (LLNL, 1971).
Based on the rate at which radioactive material decays, or half-life, tritium is one of the
primary radioactive elements expected to be prevalent in the fissures underlying
Amchitka Island at the present time (pers. com. Dasher, 2004). Monitoring of the marine
and terrestrial environment occurred at Amchitka Island during the summers of 1997,
1999 and 2001 by ADEC and the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder
Participation (CRESP). The results indicate that the tritium concentration is slightly
elevated in marine waters around Amchitka Island (pers. comm. Dasher, 2004). This
may be indicative of radioactive leakage from the underground test blasts or may reflect
other ocean sources. More monitoring is planned for the summer of 2004, sponsored by
the Department of Energy (DOE). However, tritium is not on the list of parameters for
22
sampling and analysis. In effect, by not sampling for tritium, conclusions may not be
forthcoming about potential radioactive leakage from the Amchitka blasts sites into the
marine environment.
5.2
Nuclear Reactor at Fort Greely
Another radiation source in Alaska’s environment is the nuclear reactor and its waste
material located on the 1,200 square mile Fort Greely military base, near Delta Junction,
Alaska. The Army operated a nuclear reactor from about 1962 until 1972, which was
thought to produce small scale nuclear weapons for the battlefield. Suspected sources of
radionuclides include liquid radioactive wastes released into the ground water;
radioactive steam used in the laundry and to heat the military base; a control rod accident
and subsequent cleanup process; fallout near reactor from accident that caused permanent
closing; improper methods of disposal of solid radioactive wastes; radiation remaining in
containment structure of decommissioned reactor (Buske et al., 2000). Some residents
of Delta Junction suspect that there is a relationship between the reactor and high cancer
rates in the community. The area that lies just north of Delta Junction has been dubbed
"cancer row" by residents of the area (Buske et al., 2000). A school is located on the
military reserve, and people are worried about the health of their children. Monitoring is
needed to determine if radioactive elements are present in the groundwater, surface
waters, air and to discern if there is a relationship between cancer in the community and
local radiation sources .
5.3
Future Radiation Studies
Recent monitoring at Amchitka will have cost about 3 million dollars but may not
provide information concerning leakage from the test sites and the type of radiation
leaking from Amchitka Island. Additional monitoring may be required to discern if
radiation is leaking from the Amchitka test sites. Monitoring is required to discern if
radiation leakage is having health impacts on resident marine mammals, birds, fish and
invertebrates. The Stellar sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and the southwestern Alaskan
sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyonii) in the western Aleutian Islands are listed as
endangered and threatened species, respectively. In addition, the human lung cancer rate
for the western Aleutian Islands was documented at 154.7 per 100,000 people, almost
three times the rate for Alaska (67.5) and U.S. (56.1) for the period 1996-98 (ACR 2002).
The western Aleutian Islands received the bulk of the radioactive fallout from the three
nuclear test explosions at Amchitka Island. Monitoring of people and wildlife, as well as
monitoring sediment and water quality monitoring, are required to determine if there are
any health impacts resulting from exposure to the nuclear radiation potentially seeping
out of Amchitka Island and from the numerous FUDs located along the western Aleutian
Island chain. Additional biomonitoring may also be warranted to determine if there are
any public health impacts on people living near the Fort Greely Nuclear Reactor.
23
6.0 Cancer in Alaska
6.1
Cancer Statistics for Alaska
The incidence and death rate due to all forms of disease in Alaska is tract and recorded by
the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health’s Alaska
Cancer Registry and the Bureau of Vital Statistics. This report utilizes cancer statistics
obtained from the Bureau of Vital Statistics (ADHSS, 2006). This report also
summarizes data published in 2002 by the Alaska Cancer Registry (ACR) which
contained data for the period 1996-1998 (ACR, 2002), and data obtained from the ACR
for the period 1997-2001 (ACR, 2004).
According to the Alaska Department of Health and Social Service (ADHSS), Public
Health Division’s Bureau of Vital Statistics the cancer incidence rate in Alaska per
100,000 people, for colorectal, pancreatic, lung, breast, bladder, kidney, renal gland,
thyroid, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia were all reported to be above the
national average for the time period 1996-1998 (ACR, 2002). ADHSS also reported that
the leading cause of death for 18 out of 27 Boroughs/Census Areas in Alaska was
malignant neoplasms for the period 1994-2004 (ADHSS, 2006). Cancer rates in
particular boroughs and census areas vary based on geographic location and the type of
cancer. For example, the incidence rate of breast cancer per 100,000 people, for the
period 1996-1998, on Kodiak Island (258.1) was twice that found elsewhere in Alaska
(118.1) and twice the national average (114.3) (ACR, 2002). The incidence rate for all
types of cancer in Yakutat (974 per 100,000 people) was documented to be over twice the
rate for Alaska (409.7) and the U.S. (400.5) during this same time period (ACR, 2002).
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough was found to have a statistically elevated rate of nonHodgkin’s Lymphoma (26.3 per 100,000 people) when compared to the U.S. rate (16.1)
for the time period 1996-1998 (ACR, 2002). Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a proliferation
of white blood cells, which may be related to exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POP). The lung cancer rate for the western Aleutian Islands was documented at 154.7
per 100,000 people, almost three times the rate for Alaska (67.5) and U.S. (56.1) for the
period 1996-98 (ACR 2002). The western Aleutian Islands received the bulk of the
radioactive fallout from the three nuclear test explosions at Amchitka Island. Are these
facts related?
A review of the ACR’s cancer statistics (ACR, 2004) for the period 1997-2001, by
Borough/Census Area, reveals that the national, cancer incidence rate for all types of
cancer (479.7 per 100,000 people) is exceeded in the Municipality of Anchorage (510.7),
Denali Borough (572.9), Fairbanks North Star Borough (504.8), Haines Borough (503.1),
Juneau Borough (518.4), Kenai Peninsula Borough (518.9), Ketchikan Gateway Borough
(561.3), Kodiak Island Borough (507.7), Lake & Peninsula Borough (587.9),
Matanuska-Susitna Borough (531.1), Nome Census Area (484.3), Prince of Wales-Outer
Ketchikan (547.8), Southeast Fairbanks Census Area (515.7), Valdez-Cordova Census
Area (488.5) and the Yakutat Borough (1339.6). Some of these rates may be inflated due
to the small population size. A total of 15 out of the 27 Boroughs or Census Areas in
24
Alaska exceeded the national cancer incidence rate for all types of cancer (ACR, 2004).
The Alaska, female cancer incidence rate for all types of cancer (450.9) was found to be
higher and statistically significant when compared to the national, female cancer
incidence rate for all types of cancer (421.6). However, the cancer incidence rate for
Alaskan males (567.1) was found to be similar to the national incidence rate (566.6) for
all types of cancer (ACR, 2004).
For this same time period (1997-2001), the national, cancer incidence rate for nonHodgkin lymphoma (19.4 per 100,000 people) was exceeded in the Municipality of
Anchorage (19.5), Fairbanks North Star Borough (19.7), Juneau Borough (27.2), Kenai
Peninsula Borough (23.8), Ketchikan Gateway Borough (21.6), Matanuska-Susitna
Borough (22.2), Nome Census Area (20.4), Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan (33.7), and
the Valdez-Cordova Census Area (28.0) (ACR, 2004). The rates of non-Hodgkin
lymphoma for Alaskan males (24.1) and females (17.2) were found to be above the
national average for non-Hodgkin lymphoma in males (23.6) and females (16.0),
respectively (ACR, 2004). Nine out of thirteen boroughs (69%) that reported nonHodgkin lymphoma statistics were above the national average for the time period 19972001. Fourteen of the twenty-seven Boroughs or census areas had less than six cases and
did not have non-Hodgkin lymphoma incidence rates calculated.
The national, leukemia incidence rate (12.4 per 100,000 people) was exceeded in the
Municipality of Anchorage (13.0), Juneau Borough (15.0), Kenai Peninsula Borough
(19.7), Ketchikan Gateway Borough (23.0), Kodiak Island Borough (21.9), MatanuskaSusitna Borough (17.4), and the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area (37.9) for the time
period 1997-2001 (ACR, 2004). Seven out of the eight boroughs/census areas (88%)
that reported leukemia statistics had incidence rates above the national average. Nineteen
out of the 27 boroughs or census areas did not report leukemia statistics. Both nonHodgkin lymphoma and leukemia are proliferation of white blood cells which may be
related to exposure to POP.
A review of these same statistics (ACR, 2004) reveals that the national, breast cancer rate
(137.5 per 100,000 people) is exceeded in the Municipality of Anchorage (155.1), Denali
Borough (180.8), ), Dillingham Census Area (180.1), Fairbanks North Star Borough
(148.5), Juneau Borough (146.6), Kenai Peninsula Borough (149.3), Ketchikan Gateway
Borough (153.7), Kodiak Island Borough (178.2) and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
(137.9) for the time period 1997-2001. Five boroughs had no breast cancer statistics
reported due to the low number of cases reported.
The national, lung cancer rate (64.8 per 100,000 people) was exceeded by the lung cancer
rate in all of Alaska’s Boroughs except two (ACR, 2004). The lung cancer rate for both
male and female Alaskans (77.0) was found to be higher and statistically significant when
compared to the national, lung caner rate (64.8). The lung cancer rate for Alaskan males
(92.0) and females (64.3) was also found to be higher and statistically significant when
compared to the national, lung cancer rates for males (83.4) and females (51.4),
respectively.
25
6.2
Quotes from Native Alaskan Regional Meetings
The Alaska Native Science Commission conducted state-wide, regional interviews of
Native Alaskans to document their concerns about their health in relation to their
environment. Many people had concerns about cancer and its relation to their subsistence
food, drinking water and their living environment. The following are some excerpts from
these interviews (ANSC, 2004).
Hannah Miller noted: "Few people of my age are still living. So when all this cancer
started, I wondered at night whether all this cancer is caused by something we are eating,
breathing, or because we aren't cleaning up after ourselves? Would it be wonderful if we
could just get a glimpse of what's happening to our food." Edith Morgan from Aniak
noted, "When I was at the Norton Sound meeting, they asked the ANHB to have their
epidemiology center come up here and check out the cancer concern - Anne Lanier has
been looking at getting a register of cancers. The information is really limited, so she is
asking to come to regions." Delano Barr from Shishmaref noted, "We just have go guess
about the sources of contaminants. My sister died a couple of months ago of cancer. I
often wonder what caused it. Could it have been her Native food, the air she breathed, or
the non-Native food she ate? It makes you wonder why cancer is getting more frequent,
especially among our older people" (ANSC, 2004).
More information about the Alaska Native Science Commission and these interviews can
be found at www.nativeknowledge.org.
6.3
Future Epidemiological Studies
There were many reports of disease occurring in wildlife and people that were found in
the literature and documented in personal communications during the preparation of this
document. These reports ranged from whole families being lost to cancer around the
State to lesions being documented in livers of marine mammals and in fish tissue.
Prominent documented sources include former Lt. Governor Fran Ulmer who referred to
cancer in Alaska as an epidemic in an article posted in the Kenai Peninsula Online
Newspaper “Why is cancer rate so high in Alaska?” (KPO, 2001). One of Alaska’s
greatest challenges may be coming to terms with the high incidence of cancer in Alaska
and determining what relationships, if any, there are to toxics in the environment. It
seems the widespread reports of cancer in people and wildlife of Alaska warrant a
detailed investigation of state and federal cancer statistics, registries and other data
sources.
Full disclosure and analysis of all, available and current, local and statewide cancer
statistics are warranted based on the available cancer incidence rates. These data should
be analyzed to aid the people and wildlife in areas where cancer clusters, whether
environmentally related or not, are occurring. Full disclosure and analysis of current,
local and statewide cancer statistics are necessary to aid in protecting human health.
These data could be analyzed to help answer the following questions: Where are the
cancer clusters located? What is the relationship of particular types of cancer in various
26
communities to contaminated sites, formerly used defense sites, landfills, and
contaminated drinking water or food resources? When someone contracts cancer it is not
always easy to obtain information from the patient or doctor. How do we utilize cancer
statistics, infectious disease and other health data to provide public health assistance,
monitoring and mitigation where it is needed? How do we track cancer statistics and
other health information in order to mitigate potential human health impacts related to
environmental exposures?
A detailed review and analysis of all available, current, local, state and federal cancer
statistics are necessary to identify cancer clusters and determine if the incidence of cancer
is related to environmental exposures. Independent epidemiological studies, outside of
the ADHSS and Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, should be conducted in
suspected areas to preclude foregone conclusions of no state or federal liability.
Concerned residents, epidemiologists and environmental scientists may want to analyze
the last ten years of statewide cancer statistics available from the Alaska Department of
Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiology Section. {Address:
State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Division of Public Health,
Section of Epidemiology, Cancer Registry, 3601 “C” Street, Suite 722, P.O.B.240249,
Anchorage, Alaska, 99524-0249, telephone # 907-269-8000}.
7.0 Public Health & Wildlife Concerns
7.1
Public Health Concerns
1) How do we monitor the occurrence of cancer and track cancer statistics for
Alaska? How do we obtain and analyze the latest cancer statistics for
Alaska? ? How do we utilize cancer statistics, infectious disease and
other health data to provide public health assistance, monitoring and
mitigation where it is needed?
2) Why are malignant neoplasms the leading cause of death in Alaska for 18
out of 27 Boroughs or Census Areas (ADHSS, 2006)? Why do a total of
15 out of the 27 Boroughs or Census Areas in Alaska exceed the national
cancer incidence rate for all types of cancer (ACR, 2004)? Why is the
Alaska female cancer incidence rate for all types of cancer higher and
statistically significant when compared to the national female cancer
incidence rate for all types of cancer? Are these facts related to
contaminated air, drinking water and/or food resources, or a combination
of public health conditions?
3) Why is the national, lung cancer incidence rate exceeded by the lung
cancer incidence rate in all of Alaska’s Boroughs except two (ACR,
2004)? Why is the lung cancer rate for all Alaskans found to be higher
and statistically significant when compared to the national, lung caner rate
27
(ACR, 2004)? Why is the lung cancer rate for Alaskan males and females
also higher and statistically significant when compared to the national,
lung cancer rates for males and females (ACR, 2004)? Why was the lung
cancer rate in the western Aleutian Islands (154.7 per 100,000 people)
found to be almost three times the incidence rate for Alaska (67.5) and the
U.S. (56.1) (ACR, 2002)? Is the high incidence of lung cancer related to
radiation exposure from Amchitka nuclear fallout and/or foreign radiation
sources?
4) Why do seven out of the eight boroughs or census areas that reported
leukemia statistics have leukemia incidence rates above the national
average? Why are nine out of thirteen boroughs or census areas in Alaska
that reported non-Hodgkin lymphoma statistics above the national
incidence rate for this type of cancer (ACR, 2004)? Both Non-Hodgkin
lymphoma and leukemia are proliferation of white blood cells which may
be related to exposure to POP.
5) Why do the breast cancer incidence rates in the Municipality of
Anchorage, Denali Borough, Dillingham Census Area, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, Juneau Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Ketchikan
Gateway Borough, Kodiak Island Borough and the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough all exceed the national breast cancer incidence rate? Why was
the incidence rate of breast cancer on Kodiak Island (258.1 per 100,000
people) twice the rate found elsewhere in Alaska (118.1) and twice the
national average (114.3) (ACR, 2002)? Is the high incidence of breast
cancer related to contaminated air, drinking water and/or food resources?
6) What is the relationship of particular types of cancer in various
communities to formerly used defense sites, hazardous waste sites,
landfills and the contamination of air, drinking water and food resources?
How do we mitigate these impacts? Is the high incidence of these cancers
due in part to the effects of toxic environmental contaminants (POP, HM,
PAH, radiation) which can cause a suppression of the immune system and
make people more susceptible to disease?
7.2
Fish & Wildlife Concerns
1) The Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) population is
currently listed as depleted by the National Marine Fisheries Service,
although evidence exists for listing it as a threatened or endangered
species (ADN, 2004b). It is estimated that the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale
populations is declining with an estimated 300 individuals remaining. The
NMFS is currently considering listing this population under the ESA
(JDN, 2006). What is the cause of their decline and why is this population
not recovering? Is this population not recovering due global climate
28
change and changing sea conditions, pollution sources from oil rig
discharges in Cook Inlet, untreated wastewater (primary treatment only for
Anchorage’s wastewater treatment plant), noise pollution, or a
combination of factors resulting in immune suppression?
2) Why are the western Aleutian Island Stellar sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)
and southwestern Alaskan sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyonii) populations
(both inhabit the western Aleutian Islands) currently listed as endangered
and threatened species, respectively? Is the decline of these species
related to environmental contaminant sources in the western Aleutian
Islands such as formerly used defense sites (FUDs), Amchitka nuclear
radiation, or foreign environmental contaminant sources emanating from
Russia and Asia or a combination of factors? Is their decline related to
global climate change and changes in sea water temperature or a
combination of these factors?
3) In the summer of 2004, residents of the village of False Pass in the eastern
Aleutian Islands were trying to understand what is causing seabirds by the
dozens to die there. Since the Fourth of July weekend, as many as 200
dead birds of several species were seen floating in the strait beyond the
village or washed up on the beach (ADN, 2004c; ADN, 2004d). No cause
for the die-off was evident. Is the cause of their decline related to
environmental contamination, global climate change or a combination of
factors?
4) Are these marine mammal and avian declines due in part to the effects of
toxic environmental contaminants (POP, HM, PAH, radiation) which can
cause a suppression of the immune system and make them more
susceptible to disease? Is their decline due in part to global climate
change, changing sea conditions or a combination of these factors?
5) What are the potential impacts of global climate change on fish and
wildlife? How do we monitor and assess long term changes in water
quality and associated environmental impacts? Can they be mitigated?
The recent listing of the southwestern Alaskan sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyonii) distinct
population as threatened, the steady decline of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whales
(Delphinapterus leucas) and the seabirds dying in the eastern Aleutian Islands during the
summer of 2003 may indicate that something is changing in Alaska’s coastal
environment.
29
8.0 Future Studies Summary
8.1
Epidemiological Studies
A detailed review and analysis of all available, current, local, state and federal cancer
statistics are necessary to identify cancer clusters and determine if the incidence of cancer
is related to environmental exposures. Concerned residents, epidemiologists and
environmental scientists may want to analyze the last ten years of statewide cancer
statistics available from the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division
of Public Health, Epidemiology Section. {Address: State of Alaska, Department of
Health & Social Services, Division of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology, Cancer
Registry, 3601 “C” Street, Suite 722, P.O.B.240249, Anchorage, Alaska, 99524-0249,
telephone # 907-269-8000}.
Full disclosure and analysis of current, local and statewide cancer statistics may be
warranted based on the available cancer statistics for Alaska. These data are necessary to
aid in protecting human health. These data could be analyzed to help answer the
following questions: Where are the cancer clusters located? What is the relationship of
particular types of cancer in various communities to contaminated sites, formerly used
defense sites, landfills, contaminated drinking water or food resources? Independent
epidemiological studies, outside the State of Alaska and Agency for Toxic Substances
Disease Registry, should be conducted in suspected areas to preclude foregone
conclusions of no state or federal liability.
8.2
Identification, Monitoring & Assessment Summary
8.2.1 Contaminated Sites in Alaska
Follow-up monitoring and assessment are required to identify impacts on drinking water
quality, sediment quality, and biota in areas adjacent to contaminated sites that have been
declared closed, inactive or designated “No Further Remedial Action Planned”.
Monitoring and assessment are needed for drinking water wells, sediments, rivers, lakes
and wetlands, fish and wildlife, as well as for human health in areas adjacent to or
impacted by contaminated sites. Sediments within estuaries and deltas, and sediment
dwelling organisms such as mollusks, as well as resident fish should especially be
targeted for follow-up monitoring because this is where contaminants tend to accumulate.
Follow-up monitoring and health assessments are required where institutional controls
have left large volumes of contaminants in place and where contamination has spread
into surface waters of Alaska.
30
Why are there so many contaminated military sites and how well is the Army Corp of
Engineers and other military remediation processes working? It appears more
investigation and oversight may be required to determine why there are so many military
contaminated sites, to improve and expedite the cleanup process, and evidently more
oversight may be needed to monitor military disposal practices.
8.2.2 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Identify and map all FUD sites in Alaska. Concerned residents, epidemiologists and
environmental scientists should obtain all available records on FUDs in Alaska. These
records may currently reside with the Army Corp of Engineer’s FUD Program in a trailer
at Elmendorff Air Force Base and may be the only historic information available which
would be very useful in identifying toxic hotspots in Alaska’s landscape. Posting and
fencing all FUD sites would limit environmental exposures. Complete identification and
mapping for all FUD sites located within or adjacent to each community is needed.
8.2.3 Solid & Industrial Waste Landfills
Landfills and monofills can leach hazardous constituents which can impact aquatic biota,
drinking water quality and human health. There are no monitoring requirements for
Class II and Class III MSWLF in Alaska. This is a monitoring gap because the majority
of MSWLF in Alaska are Class III (Table 3). There are an unknown number of inactive
reserve pits in Alaska, although some of these have been inventoried and mapped (pers.
comm. Roberts, 2004). There are also an unknown number of small landfills in Alaska
that have no permits or records. A targeted monitoring strategy could be developed to
assess drinking water quality, surface and groundwater quality, sediment and aquatic
resources at un-permitted and expired Class III MSWLF, inactive reserve pits and select
industrial waste monofills. Those Class III landfills that have the potential to impact
surface waters of the State and/or drinking water quality should be targeted along with
those inactive reserve pits for which there are records. Identification and mapping of all
monofills and MSWLF for each locality is also required.
8.2.4 Drinking Water
What percent of “Class B” PWS, “Class C” PWS and private wells exceed the MCL for
toxic contaminants and what impact is this having on public health? It is recommended
that a monitoring strategy be developed to include targeted monitoring for toxics (volatile
organic compounds, radionuclides, pesticides and heavy metals) in “Class B” and “Class
C” PWS and private wells in Alaska. The Drinking Water Protection Area maps
developed by the ADEC Drinking Water Program could be used to develop an area-wide
monitoring survey of tap water from villages and towns with known or suspected
contamination sources and with known MCL violations. The drinking water “Needs
Assessment” recently completed by ADEC’s Drinking Water Program could also be used
31
to guide monitoring and assessment activities. Targeted monitoring should occur in
towns and villages with suspected contamination due to FUDs, NPL and LUST sites.
This should be one of the highest monitoring priorities because of the link between
cancer and the consumption contaminated drinking water.
8.2.5 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Monitoring is required to understand the cumulative impact of multiple oil platforms on
migration routes, reproductive patterns and populations of threatened and endangered
marine mammal species. It is essential that monitoring protocols be conducted to
establish baseline biological conditions, and used to prevent impacts on marine mammal
and avian diversity and abundance. Monitoring is required to document baseline
sediment and water quality conditions and understand the impact of low level
hydrocarbons on water and sediment quality, on fish and shellfish health, on subsistence
hunting and fishing and on human health. Alaska has come along way in its prevention
and response capabilities; however, as Alaska expands its oil and gas program to other
regions of the State, it will be imperative that adequate oil spill monitoring, response and
cleanup provisions are in place.
8.2.6 Heavy Metals
High levels of lead and copper have been measured in moss samples collected near the
Prudhoe Bay oil fields in Alaska, although the source was not identified. Local oil
refineries may be a source of heavy metals in the tundra. Biological monitoring is needed
to fit the pieces together to determine where these metals originate from and what effect
they may have on caribou and reindeer of Alaska’s tundra where reports of bone marrow
and liver abnormalities are being reported (ANSC, 2004). The State of Alaska currently
does not monitor for heavy metals or other toxic compounds in air. Currently, the
National Park Service is conducting some monitoring for toxics in air over Alaska’s
National Parks. A statewide air toxics monitoring program could be developed to benefit
all Alaskans. Monitoring and assessment of Alaska’s abandoned mines is needed as well
as a complete, mapped inventory of abandoned mines in Alaska.
8.2.7 Radiation
Biomonitoring is required to discern if radiation leakage from the Amchitka test sites is
having health impacts on people as well as resident marine mammals, birds, fish and
invertebrates living in the western Aleutian Islands. Additional biomonitoring may be
warranted to determine if there are any public health impacts on people living near the
Fort Greely Nuclear Reactor.
32
8.3
Human Health and Ecological Restitution
There are several serious public health and ecological issues facing the peoples and
wildlife of Alaska as outlined in this document. These issues range from cancer and
disease in people and wildlife, to loss and depletion of marine mammal and avian species.
The DOE Amchitka nuclear test site has still not been fully monitored or assessed. In
addition, there are literally hundreds of DOD sites throughout Alaska requiring
monitoring, assessment and mitigation, as described previously. An exact cause and
effect relationship may never be established between the nature of environmental
contamination emanating from these sites and the disease process due to the complexity
of establishing this relationship.
Previous epidemiological studies conducted in Alaska, (designed to study the high
incidence of cancer in select Alaskan communities) have been primarily conducted by the
U.S. Center for Disease Control which is a federal agency with federal interests. These
interests may conflict with those of the people and wildlife of Alaska because of the
potential federal liability of acknowledging the damage caused by nuclear testing and
military disposal practices. Independent epidemiological studies, outside the State of
Alaska and Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, should be conducted in
suspected areas to preclude foregone conclusions of no state or federal liability.
Several people stated during the preparation of this document that a permanent source of
funding or “cold war fund”, in the amount necessary to be a self-sustaining, should be
made available from the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Defense for
public health assistance and ecological monitoring for damages done to the ecological
and human resources of the State of Alaska.
33
9.0 Bibliography
ACR. 2002. 1998 Alaska Cancer Registry “Cancer in Alaska, Cancer Incidence and Mortality”. Division of
Public Health, , Epidemiological Section, Anchorage, Alaska, March, 2002.
http://www.epi.hss.state.ak.us/pubs/cancer98.pdf .
ACR, 2004. Unpublished data for the period 1997-2001, from the Alaska Cancer Registry, Alaska Department
of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Health, Epidemiological Section, Anchorage, Alaska,
September 2004.
ADEC. 2001a. Sediment Quality Guideline Options for the State of Alaska. Prepared for the Contaminated
Sites Program, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
by OASIS and Bristol Joint Venture, May 2001.
ADEC. 2001b. Internal ADEC Technical Memorandum, dated January 30, 2001, prepared by the
Contaminated Sites Program, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska.
ADEC. 2002. Internal Memorandum “What are institutional controls”, dated August 27, 2002, published by
the Contaminated Sites Program, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska.
ADEC. 2004a. Data obtained from Contaminated Sites Database, Division of Spill Prevention and Response,
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska, March, 22, 2003,
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/dod_sites.htm .
ADEC. 2004b. ADEC Internal Memorandum dated March 26, 2004 from Sandra Woods, Environmental
Specialist, Solids Waste Program, Environmental Health Division, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Juneau Alaska.
ADEC. 2004c. Alaska’s Public Water System Annual Compliance Report for Calendar Year 2003, prepared by
the Drinking Water Program, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska.
ADEC. 2004d. State of Alaska’s Assumption of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. A
Report to the Alaska Legislature. Prepared by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau,
Alaska, January 2004.
ADHSS, 2006. Alaska Department of Health & Social Services, Public Health Division, Bureau of Vital
Statistics, Leading Causes of Death by Census Area for the period 1994-2004.
http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dph/bvs/death_statistics/Leading_Causes_Census/default.htm
ADN. 2004a. Anchorage Daily News article “NPR-A Lease Sales Get Okay” written by Wesley Loy, published
January 23, 2004.
ADN. 2004b. Anchorage Daily News article “Explanation sought for beluga whale population puzzle” written
by Doug O’Harra, published May 28, 2004.
ADN. 2004c. Anchorage Daily News article “Die-off of seabirds puzzles villagers”, written by Peter Porco,
published July 14, 2004.
ADN. 2004d. Anchorage Daily News article “Explanation unclear for bird die-off”, written by Peter Porco,
published September 17, 2004.
ADNR. 2003a. Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program, with Reports on Exploration Licensing and Shallow
Gas Leasing, January 2003. Prepared by the Division of Oil and Gas, Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Juneau, Alaska.
34
ADNR. 2003b. 2003 Oil and Gas Report for the period ending December 31, 2002. Prepared by the Division
of Oil and Gas, Alaska Department of natural Resources.
ADNR, 2004, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Abandoned
Mine Lands Program, Juneau, Alaska, www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/mining .
AMAP. 1997. Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report, Artic Monitoring and
Assessment Program, Oslo, Norway.
AMAP. 2003. AMAP Assessment 2002: Human Health in the Arctic, Artic Monitoring and Assessment
Program, Oslo, Norway.
AMAP. 2004. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program 2002 Assessment: Persistent Organic Pollutants in
the Arctic. Published in 2004, Oslo, Norway.
ANSC, 2004. Alaska Native Science Commission, http://www.nativeknowledge.org/login.asp .
Buske, N., P. K. Miller, L. Eckstein. 2000. Investigative Report by Alaska Community Action on Toxics for
Delta Junction, Alaska “The Nuclear Reactor at Fort Greeley”, published May, 2000.
Carpenter, D.O., K.F. Arcaro, B. Bush, W.D. Niemi, S. Pang and D.D. Vakharia. 1998. Human health and
chemical mixtures: an overview. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(6):1263-1270.
Dasher, D. 2004. Personal communication April 20, 2004 with Doug Dasher, Environmental Engineer, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Fairbanks, Alaska.
DOE. 2002. Screening Risk Assessment for Possible Radionuclides in the Amchitka Marine Environment,
prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Operations
Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, DOE/NV-857, October 2002.
EPA. 1998. Long Term Hydrological Monitoring Program, Amchitka, Alaska, 1997, prepared by the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1998, EPA-402-R-98-002.
EPA. 2001. U.S. EPA Fact Sheet for Alaska Small Suction Dredge Miners for NPDES Permit #AKG-375000. Published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 19, 2001.
EPA. 2004. 2004 Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Revised Draft, January
2004.
Ireland, R. 2004. Personal communication with Roy Ireland, June 9, 2004, Database Management Specialist,
Water Resources Program, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Anchorage, Alaska.
JDN. 2006. Juneau Empire Daily News article “Cook Inlet belugas fading away”, dated February 28, 2006.
KPO. 2001. Kenai Peninsula Online Newspaper. “Legislators want to know why cancer rate so high in
Alaska”, by Senator Lyda Green, web-posted Tuesday May 8, 2001.
LLNM. 1971. Photo courtesy of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the University of Alaska at
Fairbanks, http://www.uaf.edu/news/featured/06/amchitka/gallery/historical/source/w71-cannikin.html .
Madison, R.J. 1981. Effects of Placer mining on Hydrologic Systems in Alaska- Status of Knowledge. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-217.
MMS. 2003. Alaska Regional Update, 5-Year Plan issued December 2003, prepared by the Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf Region, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
35
Mueller, K.A. and A.C. Matz. 2002. Water Quality, Metals and Metalloid Concentrations in Water, Sediment
and Fish Tissues for Innoko National Wildlife Reserve, Alaska, 1995-1997. Published by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska, May 2, 2002.
NAEC. 2004. Northern Alaska Environmental Center,
http://www.northern.org/artman/publish/mcurrent.shtml .
Pikul, G. 2004. Personal communication March 9, 2004 with Gretchen Pikul, Environmental Specialist,
Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Roberts, J. 2004. Personal communication March 30, 2004 with Jennifer Roberts, Solid Waste and
Contaminated Sites Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage,
Alaska.
Trask, S. 2004. Personal communication July 1, and March 31, 2004, with Sherri Trask, Environmental
Compliance and Enforcement Officer, Drinking Water Program, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska.
USFWS. 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7- Alaska,
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska.
36
Appendix A- Contaminated Sites in Alaska by City
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CONTAMINATED SITES DATABASE
DEC Inventory of Contaminated Sites
Ordered by City and Priority Classification
City
Adak
Adak (near)
Akhiok (near)
Akiachak
Akiak
Akutan
Akutan (near)
Alakanuk
Aleknagik
Aleknagik (near
Allakaket
Ambler
Amchitka
Amchitka (near)
Anaktuvuk Pas
Anaktuvuk Pas (
Anchor Point
Anchorage
Anchorage (near
Angoon
Angoon (near)
Aniak
Aniak (near)
Anvik
Arctic Village
Atka
Atqasuk
Auke Bay
Auke Bay (near)
Barrow
Barrow (near)
Beaver
Bethel
Bethel (near)
Bettles Field
Big Lake
Big Lake (near)
Brevig Mission
Buckland
Cantwell
Cantwell (near)
Cape Yakataga
Cape Yakataga (
Central
Chalkyitsik
Chalkyitsik (ne
Chefornak
Chevak
High
Medium
Low
Unranked
Total
192
11
1
21
1
1
2
1
38
110
1
2
1
1
361
13
2
2
5
2
4
2
1
1
2
2
14
54
2
7
4
283
1
1
3
11
2
7
3
3
1
2
3
17
4
2
23
1
16
10
2
1
1
6
8
3
1
1
1
1
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
12
1
1
1
101
4
1
1
1
1
2
15
1
3
1
107
3
2
66
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
6
2
1
25
9
1
7
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
11
3
1
8
9
1
10
1
1
2
2
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
6
4
6
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
03/19/2004
Report: Annual Legislative Report Part 3
Last Modified: 09/08/1999 [email protected]
Page 1 of 7
37
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CONTAMINATED SITES DATABASE
DEC Inventory of Contaminated Sites
Ordered by City and Priority Classification
City
Chickaloon (nea
Chicken
Chignik
Chignik Lagoon
Chignik Lake
Chiniak
Chitina
Chitina (near)
Chugiak
Circle (near)
Clam Gulch
Clear
Clear (near)
Coffman Cove
Cold Bay
Cold Bay (near)
Coldfoot
Coldfoot (near)
Cooper Landing
Copper Center
Copper Center (
Cordova
Cordova (near)
Craig
Craig (near)
Deadhorse
Deadhorse (near
Deering
Deering (near)
Delta Jct.
Delta Jct. (nea
Denali Park
Denali Park (ne
Dillingham
Dillingham (nea
Douglas
Dutch Harbor
Dutch Harbor (n
Eagle
Eagle River
Eek
Egegik
Eielson AFB
Eielson AFB (ne
Elfin Cove (nea
Elim
Elim (near)
Elmendorf AFB
High
Medium
Low
1
1
1
Unranked
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
4
1
2
2
1
2
4
1
9
3
1
1
11
1
2
6
2
1
2
1
3
1
5
2
12
4
5
1
19
7
1
29
3
1
2
5
1
2
2
4
10
1
3
12
7
1
3
1
1
4
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
33
13
2
3
6
5
31
9
6
7
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
21
1
1
12
2
3
1
5
1
15
3
1
21
2
2
19
21
3
20
1
Total
2
1
1
1
5
2
3
3
7
1
2
17
1
3
16
2
3
10
3
2
2
22
16
6
5
63
17
1
1
50
17
9
14
9
2
3
16
3
1
10
1
3
90
4
1
2
5
61
03/19/2004
Report: Annual Legislative Report Part 3
Last Modified: 09/08/1999 [email protected]
Page 2 of 7
38
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CONTAMINATED SITES DATABASE
DEC Inventory of Contaminated Sites
Ordered by City and Priority Classification
City
Emmonak
Ester
Fairbanks
Fairbanks (near
Fort Richardson
Fort Wainwright
Fort Yukon
Gakona
Gakona (near)
Galena
Galena (near)
Gambell
Girdwood
Girdwood (near)
Glennallen
Glennallen (nea
Golovin
Grayling
Gustavus
Haines
Haines (near)
Healy
Holy Cross
Homer
Homer (near)
Hoonah
Hoonah (near)
Hooper Bay
Hope
Houston
Hughes
Hughes (near)
Huslia
Hydaburg
Iliamna
Iliamna (near)
Indian
Indian (near)
Juneau
Juneau (near)
Kake
Kake (near)
Kaktovik
Kaktovik (near)
Kaltag
Karluk
Kasigluk
Kasilof
High
Medium
Low
3
4
1
44
1
11
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
38
2
62
19
1
1
1
70
3
9
27
8
1
11
1
2
1
4
2
3
3
1
Unranked
5
1
15
4
3
1
6
5
1
5
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
9
7
3
1
3
1
9
2
3
1
5
1
8
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
5
10
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
29
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
8
1
15
1
1
2
1
13
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
Total
8
2
157
6
83
77
14
3
2
12
1
3
7
3
9
3
1
5
10
11
2
9
3
26
2
6
3
2
1
2
2
12
5
3
12
13
2
1
50
2
6
2
20
9
2
1
1
5
03/19/2004
Report: Annual Legislative Report Part 3
Last Modified: 09/08/1999 [email protected]
Page 3 of 7
39
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CONTAMINATED SITES DATABASE
DEC Inventory of Contaminated Sites
Ordered by City and Priority Classification
City
Kenai
Kenai (near)
Ketchikan
Ketchikan (near
Kiana
King Cove
King Cove (near
King Salmon
King Salmon (ne
Kipnuk
Kivalina
Kivalina (near)
Klawock
Klawock (near)
Kodiak
Kodiak (near)
Koliganek
Kongiganak
Kotlik
Kotzebue
Kotzebue (near)
Koyuk
Koyuk (near)
Koyukuk
Kwethluk
Kwigillingok
Lake Minchumina
Little Diomede
Manley Hot Spgs
Manokotak
Marshall
McGrath
McGrath (near)
Mentasta Lake
Metlakatla (nea
Meyers Chuck
Minto
Minto (near
Moose Pass
Mountain Villag
Naknek
Nanwalek
Napakiak
Napaskiak
Nenana
Nenana (near)
Newtok
Nightmute
High
Medium
Low
Unranked
Total
21
1
3
7
21
5
9
3
1
10
1
11
3
5
57
7
23
13
1
2
1
53
3
1
1
1
11
4
91
2
1
1
3
26
1
2
13
2
1
4
3
1
3
1
4
16
15
1
2
1
4
9
6
2
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
23
1
1
1
13
1
9
1
8
1
1
4
1
27
1
6
3
40
1
1
18
6
1
1
1
14
1
2
8
4
1
1
13
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
7
13
1
1
1
2
6
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
03/19/2004
Report: Annual Legislative Report Part 3
Last Modified: 09/08/1999 [email protected]
Page 4 of 7
40
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CONTAMINATED SITES DATABASE
DEC Inventory of Contaminated Sites
Ordered by City and Priority Classification
City
Nikiski
Nikiski (near)
Nikolai
Nikolai (near)
Nikolski
Ninilchik
Ninilchik (near
Noatak
Nome
Nome (near)
Nondalton
Noorvik
North Pole
North Pole (nea
Northway
Northway (near)
Nuiqsut
Nuiqsut (near)
Nulato
Nunapitchuk
Old Harbor
Ouzinkie (near)
Palmer
Palmer (near)
Paxson
Paxson (near)
Pedro Bay
Pedro Bay (near
Pelican
Pelican (near)
Perryville
Petersburg
Petersburg (nea
Pilot Point
Pilot Station
Platinum
Platinum (near)
Point Hope
Point Hope (nea
Point Lay
Point Lay (near
Port Graham
Port Graham (ne
Port Heiden
Port Lions
Port Lions (nea
Prudhoe Bay
Prudhoe Bay (ne
High
Medium
Low
15
11
1
9
4
1
2
2
22
2
1
5
2
1
1
1
5
Unranked
2
1
1
21
1
28
12
1
12
4
1
1
7
6
1
2
3
4
3
2
12
1
1
2
1
4
1
8
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
12
5
1
6
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
2
3
5
1
4
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
9
18
9
16
1
7
1
2
1
Total
35
1
1
1
13
3
1
1
31
5
1
2
42
1
48
2
1
18
4
1
2
1
29
2
5
13
1
1
2
1
1
9
4
2
1
1
9
13
3
5
2
1
1
7
1
2
21
42
03/19/2004
Report: Annual Legislative Report Part 3
Last Modified: 09/08/1999 [email protected]
Page 5 of 7
41
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CONTAMINATED SITES DATABASE
DEC Inventory of Contaminated Sites
Ordered by City and Priority Classification
City
Quinhagak
Rampart
Rampart (near)
Red Devil
Ruby
Saint George
Saint Marys
Saint Michael
Saint Paul
Salcha
Salcha (near)
Sand Point
Sand Point (nea
Savoonga
Savoonga (near)
Scammon Bay
Scammon Bay (ne
Selawik
Seldovia
Seward
Seward (near)
Shageluk
Shaktoolik
Sheldon Point
Shungnak
Sitka
Sitka (near)
Skagway
Skagway (near)
Skwentna
Skwentna (near)
Slana
Slana (near)
Sleetmute
Soldotna
Stebbins
Sterling
Sterling (near)
Stevens Village
Stony River (ne
Sutton
Sutton (near)
Talkeetna
Talkeetna (near
Tanacross
Tanacross (near
Tanana
Tatitlek
High
Medium
1
1
1
Low
Unranked
1
1
2
4
7
3
2
9
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
5
1
4
12
2
1
9
1
11
2
10
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
11
6
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
4
2
5
4
5
1
2
2
1
1
6
2
1
1
1
12
1
4
3
1
2
1
1
5
16
2
11
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
9
7
2
1
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
Total
2
2
1
2
1
23
5
2
30
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
11
4
5
25
3
1
1
2
4
24
13
12
1
4
2
1
1
1
36
2
13
16
3
9
6
2
8
3
3
1
11
1
03/19/2004
Report: Annual Legislative Report Part 3
Last Modified: 09/08/1999 [email protected]
Page 6 of 7
42
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
CONTAMINATED SITES DATABASE
DEC Inventory of Contaminated Sites
Ordered by City and Priority Classification
City
Tatitlek (near)
Teller
Teller (near)
Tenakee Spr.
Tenakee Spr. (n
Tetlin
Thorne Bay
Thorne Bay (nea
Togiak
Tok
Tok (near)
Toksook Bay
Trapper Creek
Tuntutuliak
Tununak
Twin Hills
Tyonek
Tyonek (near)
Unalakleet
Unalaska
Valdez
Valdez (near)
Wainwright
Wainwright (nea
Wales
Wales (near)
Ward Cove
Ward Cove (near
Wasilla
Wasilla (near)
White Mountain
Whittier
Whittier (near)
Willow
Willow (near)
Wrangell
Wrangell (near)
Yakutat
Yakutat (near)
High
Medium
1
1
1
2
Low
Unranked
1
4
1
3
1
3
1
3
7
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
9
7
3
41
6
19
12
2
11
23
2
1
10
1
5
2
3
1
26
2
4
3
1
7
1
1
6
1
1
1
21
3
1
5
1
1
2
4
3
4
1
3
2
Totals
2
2
12
1
1279
1075
16
2
2
1
2
1
3
844
315
Total
2
3
1
6
1
2
7
5
2
11
1
2
5
3
1
1
35
21
8
57
58
2
11
1
1
8
2
2
45
3
2
11
3
3
2
7
8
16
1
3513
03/19/2004
Report: Annual Legislative Report Part 3
Last Modified: 09/08/1999 [email protected]
Page 7 of 7
43
Appendix B- Figures
44
Download